I created a ticket for this:
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3566
any comments are welcome
On 2/23/07, Tim Chase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> items.aggregate((,), sum=(
> >> 'field1',
> >> 'field2',
> >> ...
> >> 'field20',
> >> 'field21',
> >> ), average=(
> >> 'field1',
> >> 'field2',
> >> ...
> >> 'field20',
> >> 'field21',
> >> ))
> >
> > well, in this extreme example, I would suggest you use a list:
> > fields = [ f.name for f in items.model._meta.fields ]
> > items.aggregate( sum=fields, average=fields, min=fields, max=fields )
> >
> > not that bad, is it?
>
> A nice way to do this, and a good compromise on a clean syntax that is
> also easy to do what I need.
>
> > true, but only if you would want to aggregate by those fields, we
> > could work around that by simply moving the grouping fields to a
> > separate dictionary as well:
> >
> > [
> > {
> > 'grouped_by' : { 'owner' : XX },
> > 'min' : { 'pay' : 100 },
> > 'max' : { 'pay' : 101},
> > },
> > .....
> > ]
>
> Another excellent idea. Pleasantly simple yet a good way to encapsulate
> the info while still removing the ambiguity of field-names that conflict
> with aggregate-function names. I'm still mildly concerned about being
> able to access the contents from within a template, wherein one could
> access it by member notation suggested earlier:
>
> stats.grouped_by.owner
> stats.sum.pay
> stats.max.pay
>
> -tkc
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
--
Honza Kr�l
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ#: 107471613
Phone: +420 606 678585
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django users" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
